CDZ Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, they didn't, which is why they wrote Article V in the Constitution, dude.

That is NOT how we ended up with our current Constitution.

No one was discussing Article V. you brought that in out of right field. It's as if you're having a one-way conversation with yourself, but post your statements as replied to other people's psost so that you look as mentally ill as you obviously must be

Delegates gathered to amend the Articles of Confederation, whi

No, they didn't, which is why they wrote Article V in the Constitution, dude.

That is NOT how we ended up with our current Constitution.

No one was discussing Article V. you brought that in out of right field. It's as if you're having a one-way conversation with yourself, but post your statements as replied to other people's psost so that you look as mentally ill as you obviously must be

Delegates gathered to amend the Articles of Confederation, which are still part of the US legal Code by the way, and wound up just writing a brand ne Constitution.

And I was talking about an Article V Convention almost from the fourth post, dear.

ch are still part of the US legal Code by the way, and wound up just writing a brand ne Constitution.

And I was talking about an Article V Convention almost from the fourth post, dear.

as I said, having a one-way conversation with yourself...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

SEIU has a 32BJ unit?

Hmmm .....

It's a building services union - janitors, superintendents, etc

Back home we called then the Payroll Patriots.

personally know quite a few of them

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

then you have to amend the Constitution, but seeing as you cannot get people here to agree with you on anything, how in the whacky world wide reality can you and people like you convince others to allow you anywhere near the Constitution?

Wow, Eyes gots to assplain everything to some people, huh?

If we get a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention started, then that Convention can consider any issue that it wants to.

Like anyone in their right minds would allow anyone like you anywhere nears the US Constitution

So now that you have descended into personal attacks, I guess that means you haven't got much else to say of any substance.

Have fun..

you have a difficult time engaging in a discussion that is not a one-way one where you talk to yourself

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

federal laws trump state laws if they are in conflict.

True, but that has nothing to do with an Article V convention. Have you read up on that?

you should probably get over it. because loony is what comes from the radicals in the "states".

And you are stereotyping millions of people as loons for simply advocating a Constitutional right?

Does that make you a loon, a hater, or just out of the loop?

fact (thank you jillian ): the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights

This is WHY the people who ratified the US Constitution gave the power of 'trumping' rightsto the national government over that of the individual states

Here is where Jim Bowie w/1958 Brain Cells an Dante engaged.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

fact (thank you jillian ): the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights

This is WHY the people who ratified the US Constitution gave the power of 'trumping' rights to the national government over that of the individual states

No, they didn't, which is why they wrote Article V in the Constitution, dude.

2nd time -- 1958 brain cells engages Dante

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The state congresses that ratified the Constitution and its first ten amendments are not the state governments in your view?

roflmao

State congresses? You must mean state conventions. State conventions are NOT state legislatures

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is true -- the states have the power to dissolve the federal government, while the federal government can do no such thing to the states.

Yeah, this was tried with a civil war between the states.

You clearly do not understand what I mean here.
I am not surprised.

yet the people


get it, the people versus the states? The federal constitution was vetted and ratified by conventions of the people in each state, not by state governments.

The state congresses that ratified the Constitution and its first ten amendments are not the state governments in your view?

roflmao

Not in my view, in reality. Special Ed has a twin?

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Observing Constitution Day
​

The state legislatures did not ratify the proposed constitution, because the principle was that a government should not be voting on the type of the government which was being proposed. The people, the first time Americans acted as 'the people' on a national level in individual states, responded to the state calls for state conventions, not state congresses as you ignorantly state. Ignorant because of the distinctions between what constitutes a congress and what constitutes a convention. .

It continues and in the next post 1958 will come back with his one-way conversation

where he not only gets state conventions mixed up with state governments and congresses, he stumbles to grasp the Article V issue he is using

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

federal laws trump state laws if they are in conflict.

True, but that has nothing to do with an Article V convention. Have you read up on that?

you should probably get over it. because loony is what comes from the radicals in the "states".

And you are stereotyping millions of people as loons for simply advocating a Constitutional right?

Does that make you a loon, a hater, or just out of the loop?

fact (thank you jillian ): the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights

This is WHY the people who ratified the US Constitution gave the power of 'trumping' rightsto the national government over that of the individual states

No, they didn't, which is why they wrote Article V in the Constitution, dude.

You're conflating things again. It's a sign of weak knowledge or desperation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
​

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. This is HOW the people who ratified the US Constitution gave the power of 'trumping' rights to the national government over that of the individual states

1958 posting -- it's miraculous

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

SEIU has a 32BJ unit?

Hmmm .....

It's a building services union - janitors, superintendents, etc

Whew! I was wondering why anyone would need the services of a 32 BJ unit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

SEIU has a 32BJ unit?

Hmmm .....

It's a building services union - janitors, superintendents, etc

Whew! I was wondering why anyone would need the services of a 32 BJ unit.

The name, boringly enough, comes from the fact that it was formed by a merger of Local 32B and Local 32J

 

[2aguy]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

No....you know who is paying for what...so vote accordingly. Problem solved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better.

Hilarious!

Why?

lol, do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

The government is going to spend close to $3.5 trillion this year.
You want to reduce money spent on elections, you have to reduce the incentive.
Cut government spending by a couple of trillion.

do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

Libtards don't, but I'm to the right of Attila the Hun.

amusing little exchange. i'll have to tell bill gates he doesn't know how to think for himself. apparently neither does warren buffet.

*shakes head and laughs at the wingerness of your statement*

Bill and Warren like to talk about raising tax rates on rich folks, while they work to make sure the government gets none of their billions after they die.

Yes. How terrible that they gave their money to charity.

Yeah, keeping it away from government.
While whining the government needs more.

 

[2aguy]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

SEIU has a 32BJ unit?

Hmmm .....

It's a building services union - janitors, superintendents, etc

Whew! I was wondering why anyone would need the services of a 32 BJ unit.

The name, boringly enough, comes from the fact that it was formed by a merger of Local 32B and Local 32J

Yeah, and no one ever jokes bout that, am I right?

If it weren't for such low hanging fruit, folks like me could never get a laugh....intentionally.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

No....you know who is paying for what...so vote accordingly. Problem solved.

No, the problem isn't solved since the voters are being brain washed by incessant advertising and are thus confused and misled.

Just as education is a positive good that enhances and really enables democratic processes in our Republic, so too overwhelming sources of funding for advertisement counters the effect of good education and reason. Most people have an IQ below that of an average 7-11 store manager and that is not exactly an elite position. Such people only take issues seriously when they enter a crisis mode of behaving and then they do much better, usually.

But during peaceful times of relative plenty, these people become dull and unimaginative and easily misled by complete horse shit.

That Republicans were misled into believing that Gingrich, a bedrock conservative, was in fact some kind of liberal when the primaries got to Floriduh in 2012, that is the classic case. Whether you like it or not or think it ideal or not, we have to keep corporations from buying elections like Romney bought Floriduh with about $11 million in advertising.

 

[dblack]

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.

Why?

And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

I actually agree with you about the power of corporations, but in my view it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but with the corporate charter. Limited liability simply gives them too much power. It was a calculated, Hamiltonian deal with the devil, in order to build our nation into a world power, but the gig is up. They own us now.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

Corporations are composed of people exercising free speech rights.

Not saying it's ideal, but rights are not lost due to employment unless included in the employment contract.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Corporations are composed of people exercising free speech rights.

Yes, that is true and there is a HUGE difference between nonprofit corporations on one hand and for profit corporations on the other.

We cannot let the for profit corporations buy the system and they are, bit by bit.

Not saying it's ideal, but rights are not lost due to employment unless included in the employment contract.

No, the individual has not lost any rights, but there are no right according to the constitution for groups of people that are formed to make money.